IN MAMMON WE TRUSTReview of the February 6, 2002 Newsweek article by Kenneth Woodward
"In the Beginning, There Were the Holy Books" (newsweek.com)

by Sh. G. F. Haddad

Kenneth Woodward's comparison * with help from Roy Mottahedeh * in "logos"
terms of the central place of the Qurân in Muslim belief is generally apt.
He could carry it further and reflect that the use of verses of the Qurân
on the cover of Newsweek is like distributing consecrated Eucharists for
effect. (For shame, actually.) , x L 20120703 . Woodward is also right about the shirking of
scholarly authority in the reading of the Qurân that typifies terrorists
but it would probably be less politically correct to note that this rule
also applies with modernist Muslims in general, including feminists. On the
whole, Newsweek once again resorts to insensitive sensationalism and
Woodward's piece thrives on inaccuracies and over-simplifications,
unfortunately all-too-typical of a certain Islamophobic press these days.

Woodward says: "The Qurân does contain sporadic calls to violence,
sprinkled throughout the text. When Muslims run into opposition, especially
of the armed variety, the Qurân counsels bellicose response." The Qurân
calls to self-defense, period. If someone slapped Woodward in the face and
Woodward then slapped them back instead of turning the other cheek, would
Woodward be guilty of "violence"? Islam encourages pacifism but does not
make it its only option.

Woodward says: "Islam implies "peace," as Muslims repeatedly insist. Yet the
peace promised by Allah to individuals and societies is possible only to
those who follow the "straight path" as outlined in the Qurân." In fact,
the Qurân thoroughly guarantees, and Andalusian and Ottoman history
illustrates, an unparalleled and longer-running Bill of Rights to believers
and nonbelievers alike inside its polity which no other God-conscious res
publica has ever * even remotely * achieved. Even if we were to compare the
iniquitous institution of human chattel, slavery under Islam (abolished two
centuries before the French and three before the Americans) was immeasurably
more humane * by law as well as in fact * than the vicious transatlantic
slave trade and slave life in the colonies ever were.

Woodward says: "'Fight them [nonbelievers] so that Allah may punish them at
your hands, and put them to shame,' one Qurânic verse admonishes. Though
few in number, these aggressive verses have fired Muslim zealots in every
age." In fact the verses he means, this one included, do not refer to
nonbelievers in absolute terms but only to those who violate peace treaties
and initiate aggression. And it is mostly deterrence. For Muslims, strong
words were enough, no need for elephantine warheads.

Woodward says: "The God of the early Biblical books is fierce indeed in his
support of the Israelite warriors, drowning enemies in the sea. But these
stories do not have the force of divine commands. Nor are they considered
God's own eternal words, as Muslims believe Qurânic verses to be." This is
a case of bad grammar. Stories and commandments are two different things.
The stories of Pharaoh's drowning, the golden calf etc. do not have the
force of a Divine command in the Qurân either. But ask any "practicing" Jew
or Christian if the Decalogue is God's own eternal words or not. Ask, Mr.
Woodward, a devout Jew why he would take deep offense at a cheap weekly
distributing a piece of the Torah on its front cover for indiscriminate
handling the world over.

Woodward says: "Israeli commandos do not cite the Hebrew prophet Joshua as
they go into battle, " Let Mr. Woodward check the motto visible on Israeli
Intelligence stationery and photographed at the sitehttp://www.whatreallyhappened.com/ . And review the speeches of Meir, Begin
et al. in which they quote the God of the Armies and brag arrogantly of His
terrible swift sword.

"but Muslim insurgents can readily invoke the example of their Prophet,
Muhammad, who was a military commander himself." Insurgents against what
authority exactly? And how many a Jewish and Christian festival revolve
around the theme of military deeds against a Roman or Moorish enemy?

Woodward says: "And while the Crusaders may have fought with the cross on
their shields, they did not 'could not' cite words from Jesus to justify their
slaughters." Does not Mr. Woodward's desk copy of the Gospels contain the
phrases, spoken by Jesus, "I did not come to bring peace but to bring a
sword" and "Whoever does not have a sword, let him sell what he has and buy
one"? Furthermore, the word of Popes was enough for the Crusaders and one of
them * was it Pope Urban the Sixth? * told them verbatim, "Kill them all,
and God will sort them out." This was not Vietnam, this was Western
Christians against Eastern Christians in the Fourth Crusade at
Constantinople.

Woodward says about the Qurân: "None of its 114 suras, or chapters, focuses
on a single theme." Here is the full English rendering of Sura 112, titled
True Monotheism (al-Tawhid): "In the Name of God, all-Beneficent, most
Merciful. Say: He is God, the One. God, the everlasting Refuge, Who has not
begotten, and has not been begotten, and equal to Him there is none." I hope
Mr. Woodward can see the single theme through these lines. And yes, they are
God's eternal word, unlike this week's News.

Woodward says: "When Muhammad's recitations were finally written down and
collected after his death" Not only was the Qurân compiled in his lifetime
and under his direct supervision, but we actually know the names and
detailed lives of the scribes that he selected for that purpose.

Woodward says: "Readers of the Bible will find in the Qurân familiar
figures such as Abraham, Moses, David, John the Baptist, Jesus and even the
Virgin Mary. But their stories differ radically from those found in the
Bible." Not at all. The story of Joseph and his brothers in the Qurân,
which forms the entirety of the chapter titled "Joseph" (chapter 12), does
not differ one whit from the Biblical version. Woodward himself says, one or
two paragraphs later, "The Qurânic Moses (Musa) looks much like his
Biblical counterpart."

Woodward says: "In the Qurân there is no mention of the Passover rituals,
and among the commandments one of the most important for Jews 'keeping the
Sabbath' is absent." Mr. Woodward will find the Sabbath mentioned six times
in the Qurân if he only takes a minute to ask an educated Muslim to point
out the passages to him. As for Passover, it is the actual title of the
fifth Sura, the Table-Spread.

Woodward says: "Obedience to parents is stressed repeatedly, but as in the
Qurânic story of Abraham, disobedience is required when parents are
polytheists." Not at all, but only when they call upon their son or daughter
to recant. Otherwise, obedience to them is stressed *especially* when they
are nonbelievers. And was it not Jesus, Mr. Woodward, who said: "I came to
set father against son, son against father, daughter against mother, and
mother against daughter"? How do ye judge?

Woodward says: "The Qurân's fluid structure can be confusing, even to
Muslims." It is OK for modern minds to feel confused before a sacred text.
But surely inaccuracy, poor research, and over-simplification can only help
add to any perceived confusion rather than help dispel it. I have no reason
to attribute bad faith to Mr. Woodward whom I do not know, but I can
certainly ask him to research his topic a little better next time.

Duly noted also is Newsweek's choice of three pictures to illustrate
Woodward's piece on the web: two pictures show fierce-looking Muslim men in
scowls and daggers, while one picture shows peaceful, smiling Christian
prelates and children.

Last month Newsweek ran an "Issues 2002" in which practically every caption
containing the word "Muslim" was also an insult to intelligence, from
Huntington's Star-Trek "Age of Muslim Wars" to Fukuyama's thoughtless
comparison of Islam with German and Italian fascism. (They may be
seven-figure academians in top US universities but they certainly understand
advertising and sales.) In the unbelievably shoddy newsclip piece "Two
Decades of Muslim Violence" on pages 12-13, most of the seven entries did
not remotely qualify as acts committed in the name of Islam and none as
"Muslim violence." Ironically, one columnist bent over backwards to tell the
readers how the US president "is redefining the vocabulary of conflict."
Muslims are not about violence and empire, but Newsweek is definitely
redefining the vocabulary of journalism to amass more circulation by
pandering to hatemongering instead of educating its readers about Islam.